What's a FAST Rendering-PC for use w/Vegas?

farss wrote on 7/19/2006, 9:18 AM

I think it really can depend on just what your renders entail.
Lot's of tracks and heavy FXs are mostly CPU bound, minimal FXs, composites etc and I/O bandwidth becomes the bottleneck.

Bob.

superkennyk wrote on 7/19/2006, 10:15 AM

I have a Pentium Dual Core 2.8 Gig with 4 gigs of ram and it takes about 4 hours to render a 3 minute avi @ 1446X1032. I have a lot of 3D graphics involved. I would say that is a reasonable time, compared to anything else. I just came back from a render walk and I still have 3 hours to go!

Maestro wrote on 7/19/2006, 10:20 AM

I'm running dual Opteron 285s and usually render via the Debugmode Frameserver to ProCoder set at mastering quality. I usually get slightly better than real time for rendering with minor effects. So for example, I have a 2 hour timeline with color correction on half the events and it takes about 1 hour 50 minutes to complete.

johnmeyer wrote on 7/19/2006, 10:22 AM

If you are really talking about rendering time (e.g., time to create 3D, and fX) and not encoding (the time it takes to create MPEG from DV AVI), then the obvious answer is: network rendering. If you have three identical PCs, you can get almost a 3x improvement. So, why look for just a 30% improvement, when you can get 200% (3x)? Vegas comes with a license that lets you use two additional computers (for a total of three) for no extra cost. Even if your other computers aren't quite as fast as your main computer, you'll still get a big improvement.

seanfl wrote on 7/19/2006, 10:58 AM

Ken

I think you'll find the new Intel Core 2 Due chips will provide that 30 - 50% improvement you're looking for.

This is a decent article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/

and specifically the tests here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/page15.html

I'm running an AMD 4800+ x2 and have been pleased, but like you would like faster render times. I'd love to run two of these above mentioned core 2 duo's when that's possible...now that would fly. Give it a couple months and you'll get a core 2 duo setup and be very pleased. Sean

Dan Sherman wrote on 7/19/2006, 11:48 AM

AMD dual core Opteron hastens rendering significantly.
But as farss says a lot depends on what your rendering.
Blur, as a for instance takes forever. Same with opacity changes.

GlennChan wrote on 7/19/2006, 11:52 AM

If enough people asked for it, you can likely get a real-time gaussian blur in Vegas. Wax already does it (or almost; I forget). FCP does 5+ layers of gaussian blur on SD since the filter is highly optimized (i.e. the linear blur is slower, even though its computationally easier). Cheating the math allows the filter to be a lot faster.

I'm more interested in unsharp mask though, since I find that it encompasses everything blur can do.

GlennChan wrote on 7/19/2006, 11:54 AM

I'd wait for Intel's core2 most likely. Once it arrives, you either:

A- Replace the motherboard + CPU. You may need to replace the RAM too.

B- Look for a hot deal on a Dell computer, since this is sometimes cheaper than the DIY route (and less labour). As discussed in the past, there are some downsides compared to the DIY route (support, proprietary parts, hard to upgrade/expand, etc.).

jaydeeee wrote on 7/19/2006, 2:32 PM

johnmeyer's reply might just get you somewhere if you have the means.

The latest core 2's are pretty sweet (but then again i'd say the hype on it is rather hopeful right out the gate. Some people hoping/expecting to see drastic increases from the latest amd offerings..and rather blinded by the hype and tech.
I'd let it settle in the real world (and in price) before diving in just yet, but it should help ya. Get ready to spend that cake though.

Heck even a 4400/4800 x2 will be a good upgrade for ya (watch the prices on these drop - you might just build two or more of these and take up johnmeyers suggestion).

busterkeaton wrote on 7/19/2006, 2:51 PM

Later this month, we should get the new intel chips announced. Followed the next day by AMD announcing a big price drop. The new prices should hit the streets first week of August.

Places like Dell may do big disounts in the next few weeks to clear out old inventory.

busterkeaton wrote on 7/19/2006, 3:01 PM

It seems that PC CPU speeds have plateaud this past couple of years... is that right, or am I missing something? Looking up at newegg/tiger etc, seems like 2.8 to 3.2 is the bulk of CPU speeds... when do we get 4.0+ speeds

You're missing something. Intel and AMD have been turning out faster chips at lower speeds for a couple of years now by making them more efficient per clock cycle and by going dual core.

Intel found out that by taking the old Pentium 4 architecture up to 4 GHZ and beyond, they were running into siginificant heat issues and significant power consumption issues. So Intel had to revamp its chip architecture. It's one of the reasons that AMD has been kicking Intel's butt for a couple of years, Intel found out their chips were not going to scale to speeds they thought they would.

johnmeyer wrote on 7/19/2006, 3:25 PM

It seems that PC CPU speeds have plateaued this past couple of years... is that right, or am I missing something? Looking up at newegg/tiger etc, seems like 2.8 to 3.2 is the bulk of CPU speeds... when do we get 4.0+ speeds

You are absolutely correct. Computers are still getting faster by including the tweaks that busterkeaton listed, but the performance gains no longer follow the "learning curve" to which we've been accustomed. Thus, to get significantly more power, you are going to have to do something very specific. Network rendering is one such specific move that will most definitely provide a much, much bigger improvement for rendering than will dual core, dual cpu, and hyperthreading. For preview, it appears as though the video GPU approach may help more than simply a faster CPU by itself, although I am not totally convinced that this is really the case. It will be interesting to see what the Vegas engineers have decided when we all finally see Vegas 7.

Anyway, do the network rendering thing. If you have any XP computers lying around, you can have it set up and running in under fifteen minutes (far less, if you've done it before), and you'll reduce your rendering time by more than if you go out and buy the fastest XP computer that Dell or Boxx or Polywell or anyone else has to offer.

GlennChan wrote on 7/19/2006, 4:17 PM

The GPU can be used for rendering, not just previews. On the upside, they can do certain real-world tasks (i.e. many image processing techniques including optical flow) ~20X faster than a CPU. You will of course need a fast video card. It seems like getting Vegas to do GPU acceleration would be a good way to go for mid-high-end users... and better price/performance than network rendering.

Quality-wise, CPU varies between 8-bit int and 32-bit float (which is good enough; CPUs are capable of higher precision). ATI cards are 24-bit float, Nvidia 32-bit float.

Filter optimizations is another approach.

2- This is OT, but I think we (the users) should ask for a smidgen of GPU acceleration for the most commonly-used tasks (i.e. pan/crop, resize, color corrector incl. secondary, etc.).

johnmeyer wrote on 7/19/2006, 7:52 PM

2- This is OT, but I think we (the users) should ask for a smidgen of GPU acceleration for the most commonly-used tasks (i.e. pan/crop, re-size, color corrector incl. secondary, etc.).

Good idea. Put it in the suggestion box (link at top of this page). Maybe they'll listen.

jrazz wrote on 7/19/2006, 8:27 PM

Ken,

Another option would be to store all your files associated with the project you are about to encode on a removeable or external drive and then connect that drive to another computer (A refurb with 2 gigs and an athlon 64 3300+ proc at Tigerdirect for around 300-400 dollars) that is running Vegas 6(a hundred something bucks at B&H) and letting it render while you are working on other projects on your editor.

May not be what you are looking for, but it is a cheap way to free up your editor and allow you to work while rendering.

j razz

ken c wrote on 7/20/2006, 1:08 PM

hi - thanks very much everyone, terrific thread... good point re speed curve not increasing the way it used to, back in 1999-2003... will do re looking into dual cores and waiting til new ones are out, to see differences in render speeds...

it would be great to get examples of actual render speeds (that would be a helpful benchmark thread btw), for things like a 2-3 cam edit with titles + graphics, even just short 5-10 minute clip render speeds... eg post a screencap of the timeline, plus render speed for 5-10 minutes worth of footage, along w/specs of the pc..

just an idea..

and thanks too to all of you who've posted helpful hardware tips over this past couple of years, it's been a big help to me... eg I got the dell widescreen, and moved away from maxtor external drives, and much more, directly thx to your comments and posts here, so thanks a lot - it counts!

ken

busterkeaton wrote on 7/20/2006, 2:27 PM

Ken,

Search for rendertest. DSE created a veg using only Vegas generated media, so it would be the same on all machines. Someone has a list of the times of test results for various chips.

GlennChan wrote on 7/23/2006, 12:00 PM

Here's my list. I would expect core2 to top the list once it hits the shelves... techreport.com is one site with a good review of that processor.

39s - AMD X2 4600+
SOURCE: JohnnyRoy @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=423138&Replies=4

*39s/74s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: philfort@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=399447&Replies=26

*39s - AMD X2 4400+ overclocked to 2420mhz
SOURCE: Jayster @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=465519&Replies=0

*40s/76s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: TheRhino@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=61

45s - Pentium D 3.0ghz
SOURCE: GMElliot @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=423138&Replies=8

*75s - P4 3.6ghz overclocked from 3.0 Pentium. A new 5xx-series 3.6ghz should be as fast or slightly slower.
SOURCE: Stormcrow@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=57

78s- AMD64 3700+ (san diego core??? [2.2ghz, 1MB cache], vegas 6, dual channel RAM)
SOURCE: Charley Gallgher@ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45178&page=2&pp=15

*78s- P4 3.2 overclocked to 3.8ghz (Northwood core???, 800FSB [it's overclocked, so the FSB is actually higher])
SOURCE: jamcas@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422

79s- AMD64 3400+ (unknown core, Vegas 6)
SOURCE: Charley Gallagher@ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45178&page=2&pp=15

89s- 3.0E Pentium Prescott (865 chipset, dual channel RAM, Vegas 5)
SOURCE: Glenn Chan@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=396239&Replies=57

90s - 2.8ghz Pentium (Prescott)
SOURCE: TalawaMan@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=262716

90s - Opteron 246 2.0ghz X 2 (dual channel memory, old 2004 core, *VEGAS 5*)
SOURCE: rohde@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422
*Please keep in mind Vegas6 has optimizations for dual processors, while Vegas 5 does not.

93s - AMD64 3200+ (2004, so probably old core)
SOURCE: PH125@ http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422
99s is Sid Phillip's report in the same thread.

95s - AMD64 3000+ (2.00ghz, 512kb cache, single channel, socket 754, 2004 core)
SOURCE: ibliss@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=256422

114s - Pentium-M 1.7ghz laptop
SOURCE: The_Jeff@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=262716

128s - Sempron 2400+ 1.4ghz (Palmero core, S754, 256KB cache)
SOURCE: Glenn Chan

These results are for the original rendertest.veg, not the new one. You can download it from:
http://www.vasst.com/resource.aspx?id=35443070-0b67-4a2e-807c-a7f431ebd02d

Jason Robinson wrote on 8/13/2006, 3:57 PM

(just joined this forum, but have been using vegas 6 professionally for 1.5 yrs)

I am amazed at the power of dual CPU systems (I am sure the dual core systems are no different).

I have two systems outlined below. I tested the same project and souce media rendering to the same settings on both systems and founr out that my brand new Alienware was only 3% faster than the 4 year old DIY Dual Athlon.

Dual Athlon MP 1800+ cpus
ECC DDR2100 (266MHz) RAM - 512MB
64bit PCI card - RAID 0 drive + big IDE drive

Alienware MJ12-7700
P4 HT 3GHz
2.5GB DDR2 533MHz
RAID 0 drive

So a 4 year old system can keep up almost completely with the fastest of the fastest (one year ago that is) of systems.

So I have no doubt that significant render improvements could be seen by using dual CPU or Dual core systems. Also consider a RAID 5 storage system because if you are rendering HD that 1080i footage is going to suck up drive bandwidth.

jason

winrockpost wrote on 8/13/2006, 4:04 PM

Vegas loves the dual core amd processor,, at least for me it has been a dramatic (is that spelled right, looks funny ) improvement in render time.

ushere wrote on 8/13/2006, 4:27 PM

hell, just get out and have a render walk / coffee / dinner / picnic.

ok, i'm no longer in the fray, all my clients are happy to wait for the finished product, and if they want faster - i send them to my friends who have either realtime hardware, or umphy pcs. either way, they'll (the clients) will have to pay a premium for it. the old adage still stands;

any two - speed / quality / cost

i mean, just how much time do you really want to spend infront of your computer working on someone elses project?

leslie

kleb wrote on 8/13/2006, 9:38 PM

Here is a couple great articles/reviews on Core 2 ready systems and chipsets if you haven't already seen them.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2797&p=1

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1958&cid=6&pg=9

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 8/13/2006, 10:34 PM

5100 series xeon procs based on the core 2 duo chipset. They're 64 bit which will give you a boost if/when vista ever arrives or if you want to go XP64. The juice of these bad boys will be talked about for weeks :P or until someone releases a faster one.

the answer to all your prblems my friends, the 5100 series xeon procs - they'll rule the roost for a little while now I think.

Dave

Stuart Robinson wrote on 8/14/2006, 11:35 AM

I run dual Opterons (four cores) so here's a "gotcha" to look out for:

Make sure the application you're working with can use more than one thread. A single-threaded application will only use 50% of the CPU resources of a dual-core processor, and only 25% of the resources of a four-core machine (or thereabouts). You could open four instances of the same program, but that gets messy.